Republicans are so out of touch with Latino voters that they think passing an immigration bill will fix their problem.
What about getting rid of all the lunatics, staunch ideologies, conspiracy mongering, global warming denial and willful ignorance?
That will be a good start.

Latino voters are overwhelmingly overrepresented in lower levels of educational attainment (4th generation) and income. Plus they favor increased immigration from their co-ethnics. These are the reasons a party that favors increased state assistance and immigration will appeal.

Is it just me or does changing your views on illegal activity in order to gain favor with the illegals and those supporting them sound like a very poor reason to change a political position? This is after all a Constitutional Republic with some Constitutional principles that most of us still embrace. One of these is the rule of law. This means that we, private citizens or elected or appointed officials, don't get to choose which laws we obey and which we choose to ignore. Whether or not we agree or like them is of no consequence - under the law. When Obama directs his JD to ignore some laws and refuse to prosecute others, he is outside the law. The concept of prosecutorial discretion is not codified in the Constitution, nor in any law that I am aware of and when it is exercised for political considerations it is an abomination to the rule of law.

Principle vs practice, here we go again. Okay, if we land-mine the borders, our principles will be in tact. And maybe a test of citizenship should be whether someone now speaks English. But really, there's no good answer. The fact Repub's talked 'self-deportation' shows how poor their ideas are. And what's wrong with doing nothing? When I was in LA, Mexicans were nothing if not handy. And the Repub's: it's too late for them to get the immigrant vote, while their chief worry is a third-party from the Right that would leech votes and contributions. It's like saying they should go for the women's vote. Too late.

Mangopop,
You are correct. Any day now I expect The Economist to write an article explining how the democrats overwhelmingly won the pedifile vote and what actions the Republicans should take in order to gain the vote of more pedifiles.

Self-deportation has already begun. Our poor economy with its high unemployment rate has taken a "toll" on the poor illegal. If our employment laws were vigorously enforced so that employers were actually afraid of hiring illegals, they would self-deport, costing us nothing. Then the liberals will cry that we won't be able to afford a head of lettuce! Nonsense of course. First, American's would require higher pay, granted. However, they would support their families here, spend their money here (not deport their money back to...wherever), and improve the lives of American citizens who want to stay here, know English and have no allegiance to other locals. What's wrong with that? I'll buy you a head of lettuce if you can't afford the extra 20cents.
And if we can't find enough lettuce pickers, set up a system where they come here legally and can't be exploited by scum-bag employers. Pay them the same wages as American's get, tag them so they go home after the harvest - hold their last paycheck to be picked up at the border, or something that controls entry and exit.

The Republicans would be doing well if immigration were there only problem. Something about rape and women's bodies able to shut down those functions may be worth considering. I would strongly recommend Jr. High biology be among the subjects Republican's study ahead of 2014 and certainly well ahead of 2016. It is amazing the national party supports people with such weird beliefs. They certainly cannot be taken seriously.

To think a group that is at best at Jr. High Biology level would be ready for national politics in just a couple years is a stretch at best. The Republican's best hope is probably well beyond 2016 if Hilary considers a presidential run.

Well, in the middle of the last century we had a national party cheerfully accepting the support of people with those kinds of weird beliefs. And it was pretty much the same worldview and constellation of beliefs -- held by much the same group of people.

The difference is that the Democrats, being mostly a center-left party, managed to accept the support without getting taken over. The Republicans of the 1970s and 1980s were not so deft.

Democrats need to take junior high school geology and history. Unlike the GOP that repudiated Mourdock, the Democrats still fully support Hank Johnson who thinks Guam can tip over and Sheila Jackson Lee who thinks there's still two Vietnams and that Americans landed on Mars.
.
As for the base, the GOP, being a center-right party until the rise of the Tea Party, won election after election, and even when they lost, they lost to conservative Democrats. 2008 was the first time since 1976 that a Democrat won a majority in the presidential election. The problem with Democrats is that, objectively, they really belong in Socialist International but most Americans don't. It isn't merely that Democrats want some central planning for the sake of social justice. It's that they believe that central planning is the most economically efficient means of allocating resources. You just can't get a majority to sign on to that.
.
P.S. I did not use "socialist" as a pejorative in any sense. If you have a problem with the word, blame the world. The insistence on using an antiquated definition of "socialist" that nobody else in the world shares is an example of Democratic bubble-think. Be like Bernie Sanders and embrace the word!

The use of "socialist" that you're talking about isn't about central planning at all. Several of the "socialist" economies, in the sense that you refer to, score near the top of "economic freedom" and "ease of starting a business" rankings.

If the word "socialist" was being used to mean a Scandinavian-style large safety net, then you're wrong to say that most Americans wouldn't sign on to that. Americans are not opposed to a generous safety net. They are opposed to "socialism" in the way that Americans use the word, ie. high levels of direct government ownership of industries, excessive or redundant regulations, etc. In fact, the word "socialism" has almost come to mean "excessive spending."

If you asked Americans whether they want a market economy with a strong safety net, defining some of the specifics for them, the survey answer would be a lot different than if you used the word "socialist."

What "socialist economies" are you talking about? There's another Democratic fallacy; that socialism can only exist if it's economy-wide. No individual socialist policies or parties can exist.
.
The non-socialists in Europe want safety nets. That's not at all what I was talking about. I meant what I said. Central planning. Democrats favor public schooling over school vouchers. They favor public pensions over individual accounts. They favor public health insurance over individual health savings accounts. The left-wing of the party favors public banks over private banks. How are they in any way distinguishable from some of the socialist parties of Europe like the Labour Party of the UK? Sure, you can point to a more extreme socialist party like France's but in the pantheon of socialist parties, the Democratic Party fits right in.
.
Americans are for safety nets. Republicans are for safety nets though perhaps not as vigorously. But most Americans aren't for central-planning the way the Democrats are.

No, Republicans really oppose socialism as used by the rest of the world. Republicans oppose France's Socialist Party, UK's Labour Party, Spain's Socialist Workers' Party, etc. Democrats conflate socialism with communism to the point where they don't acknowledge those European socialist parties to be really socialist.

Let's be clear - the word "socialism" in its original meaning, and IMO in the sense that most European social democrats mean it, has little to do directly with the size of the state. It's about how much political power labor and the middle class have, relative to capital and the upper classes. Thus, Germany's law that workers are represented on a corporation's board of directors is "socialist," even though it doesn't involve any more state intervention than America's complex body of corporate law.

As for public schooling & pensions compared to the alternatives, I think the average citizen's response would vary enormously depending on the details. I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans have any ideological preference - they care about which method will bring them the most direct, personal benefit. And that is up for debate.

But, I really, seriously doubt that most people using "socialism" as a boogeyman are talking about that. They're trying to invoke Communism, more or less. The way that you are using the word is immensely less dramatic and less objectionable than the way it's typically understood in American discourse.

It's going to be a long time before Latinos trust the GOP. The Republican pols got good and scared by what happened in the 2012 election. But what's the party going to do about all those racists in its base?

That is a highly offensive comment and I am not a Republican. There are plenty of racists, sexists, and downright ignorant people in BOTH parties. Tell me exactly what Barack Obama and the democrats have done for Latinos? The president only started paying attention to Latinos again when it looked like the election was getting closer.

DiA Commentors 101:
bampbs is the race card. Doesn't matter the issue. Somehow the race card will be pulled. But don't think he's doing it in defense of racial minorities. He'll throw anyone under the bus for the sake the Party.

only slightly less offensive and again, not based on anything factual. True Conservatives are more concerned with personal responsibility and consequences for actions as opposed to many(not all) liberals who seek to blame others for their misfortune. If someone is a racist, there are many factors that have formed their beliefs, I do not believe conservative or liberal has much to do with that. It is just a convenient and tired talking point of the left.

Unless you count the soft racism of low expectations. A conservative will instinctively teach a man how to fish while a liberal will want to give him a fish, make him dependent and therefore control him.

I know a lot of people who would not allow one more Mexican into the country, but they are not racists; they don't hate anyone because of their skin color. They simply want the America they grew up in back, and some of us are willing to fight for it if need be.

The Republicans didn't realize the extent of how far the Dem's would go to win the election. More than 6 million illegals got to cast absentee ballots and distorted the election. Every major polling organization missed the trend since they never sample illegal voters. Only the NYT got wind of the scam and took them into account

What we are talking of in the US is NOT immigration REFORM; almost all the discussion is about an amnesty for those who are here 'illegally'. The existing system of immigration is fine, it is just not enforced.

As an example, granting 'automatic' permanent residence (green card) to foreigners who graduate with advanced (MS PhD) degrees in STEM subjects is NONSENSICAL. There is already the system of 'practical training' following graduation (up to 18 months), during-following which the employer can file for the immigration of the candidate. This system is NOT BROKEN.

The effort to increase H1B's is NOT in the long-term interest of the US. It will hold down salaries, discourage Americans from seeking training in the STEM fields, and we will be forever locked into 'importing' foreigners.

It seems that you haven't been engaged in trying to hire for positions in a lot of STEM fields. Because if you had, you would be well aware that an excess of people with that training is not reality. Nobody goes thru the hassle of lining up an H1B visa (and it is a huge hassle for the company doing the hiring) if they could get someone qualified otherwise. Unfortunately, all too often that simply isn't an option.
.
And if we can get people who have gotten graduate degrees here to stay here and help build our industries, we will all be better off. Even before we consider the number who want to stay and found companies to commercialize the results of their research. The sense in forcing them to go away and start those companies somewhere else is really hard to see.

My reference to H1B was basically to say that the numbers should be limited (rather than the increase as just proposed by a senate 'bill'). The more we bring in 'foreigners' and 'depress' wages, the less our own children will be to get into the STEM field. As a result we will for ever depend on 'importing' foreigners.

The training I referred to was regarding student visa. After graduation there is a period of 'training' (doesnt MEAN training, but effectively is a 'trial-probationary' period during which the employer can assess the capabilities and need for a graduate. During that time the employer can start the application for the foreigner to be granted US permanent resident visa. This process may stand some improvement but the outline is very valid, and we DO NOT need to automatically award a green card with the diploma.

Yes, the most ridiculous part of our immigration policy is that we systematically invite the smartest people in the world to study in our best graduate programs, support their education with public grants, and as soon as they receive their diploma we revoke their visas, treat them as security risks, and do everything we can to prevent them putting their skills to work within our borders.

This kind of discordance is the result of our lobbyocracy (government by narrow special interest groups).

Perhaps the better view is that our educational system and our larger societal system are broken and too many of our children coming through our system can't compete with foreign students wanting to come here to complete their education. I agree that many of the foreign students should be encouraged to stay here and make the U.S. their home, once we're satisfied their intentions are in our best interests. I've hired seveal employees through the H1-B program and there was more red tape than hiring someone here, but these people were, without exception, more motivated, smarter, energetic and eager than the local candidates. Never regretted hiring any of them - and without exception they are still here, moving up and taking executive positions here and with other companies.

Immigrants don't come illegally to the USA in order to vote. They come in order to work. Therefore what they need is a working permit.

They come to the USA to find the working opportunities that they don't have at home because in their countries there is no legal system that protects investments and there is no rule of Law.

But when they enter the USA illegally, they contribute to ruin the very foundation on which the prosperity of the Country is based. Therefore, an amnesty is a contribution to that same end.

Better to extend a "red card" to all of those that come forward and make them to exit the Country at least one day, in order to reenter legally and be given a working permit for some length of time. If all requisites of good conduct, including paying taxes are met, an extension could be given. And another after that. Then, after a certain number of extensions, providing that all pertaining taxes are paid, community or military service is performed, and a command of the english language is demonstrated, a path to citizenship could be initiated.

After a while, those without a "red card" should be devolved to their countries, to learn the lesson.

The GOP is performing adequately on education and now immigration. Social issue messaging needs some tweaking but no fundamental shift is necessary or electorally beneficial. I think foreign policy is the one area Republicans can earn some bipartisanship cred by praising the President. The difference between Republicans and Obama on foreign policy is all rhetoric. In fact, there's a bigger difference between Obama and his supporters. "We defend the President against his left-wing critics who think foreign policy can run on daisies and kittens."
.
On economic issues, both parties suffer from a lack of underlying principles concerning the role of government and fiscal policy. Why should government do some things but not others? Why is one tax scheme preferable to another? This is a bigger missed opportunity for Republicans than Democrats. Centrist economic thought is somewhat right-leaning. Paul Krugman recently had a post about how economically it doesn't matter if fiscal stimulus is given to the rich or the poor, as much as he wishes it were true that it would work better if given to the poor.
.
So if I has one piece of advice for the GOP, it would be to work out a consistent economic/fiscal philosophy and build the party on the strength of those ideas.

I'd rather see them develop a coherent philosophy of governance, but based on the same questions. The problem with a fiscal/economic philosophy is that Republicans have been pretty consistent in and out of power, but in power they follow the Democrats' philosophy. I don't know if they can get back into power to prove that they are finally sincere without being in power and acting like they finally mean it.

I think they have to focus on accepting that we are fortunate to have a federal government, that it is useful for society but that the levers of power do not include a moral panacea. You can't expect us to leave our government in the hands of people who don't accept its mission.

The problem with a fiscal/economic philosophy is that Republicans have been pretty consistent in and out of power, but in power they follow the Democrats' philosophy
-
Destroy it Isildur!
No, the ring in mine!
-
The same is true of politicians in general. Obama, as a candidate, promised to give up a lot of powers, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, prosecuting medical marijuana providers... Now, instead, he's killing Americans without any judicial oversight, the justice department is completely out of control, executive agencies are running by fiat, appointed by fiat. Voting for someone to reduce the power they're about to get is perennially disappointing.

So basically everyone but Ron and Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich is a neo-con? If it's them vs. everyone else, I wouldn't bet on the former being the sane group.
.
By the way, what would you call those of us who opposed the Iraq War but supported US intervention in Libya to prevent slaughter? Semi-neo-cons?

Without congressional authority? We go to war for one reason, the defense of this country. You could make the case that allowing Qaddafi free reign was a strategic threat, he had sponsored terrorist attacks against Americans, and our allies were involved, but it has to be put to our legislature. I would call a President who overthrew a regime without any approval from our representatives a criminal.

Qaddafi abandoned terrorist attacks against Americans decades ago. I don't buy that there was a realist case for intervention. It was humanitarian. Either way, it's illegal like regulating in-state wheat production is illegal. I think it's unconstitutional but legal precedent says otherwise. Legal precedent gives the President exclusive authority over foreign military campaigns with Congress merely holding the purse strings.

At the best of times, heavy influx of immigrants bringing along with them their deeply flawed cultures and traditions (bad habits and hang-ups actually), elements that corrupted, impoverished and destroyed the very societies from whence they came, unable, unwilling and too arrogant to assimilate, will ultimately corrupt, undermine the social fabric and also destroy the very sanctuary they have come to seek to hither, thither and whither they were westbound, thus eventually killing those geese that have hitherto been laying the golden eggs and subsidizing the rest of the world.

What we see in California is a bunch of property owners who want a lot from the state, but refuse to pay for those services. Add to that a lot of fear-mongering about crime (which is actually falling), and you get a burgeoning prison system full of those who commit victimless "crimes" with drugs (and a lot of highly paid prison guards), and you are looking at a big budget deficit.
.
For a long time, it has been impossible to straighten the mess out, because one party had a blocking minority inthe legislature, and could stop any attempt to sensibly resolve the problems. Now, they have fallen so far that obstructionism is no longer possible. So maybe we will finally start making some progress again. (Too bad Republicans were not willing to make some sensible compromises to get a good solution. As it is, we will be stuck with whatever the Democrats come up with alone. Some of us conservatives will know who to blame for that.)

" (Too bad Republicans were not willing to make some sensible compromises to get a good solution. As it is, we will be stuck with whatever the Democrats come up with alone. Some of us conservatives will know who to blame for that.)"
No need for the future tense. We already know whom to blame. Pogo was right...

Well, obviously rotten Jonny Foreigner has a lot to answer for. Unfortunately most of the readers of The Economist here are "rotten Jonny Foreigners" as are the staff that write it. So why are you posting here when you despise them all?

Or have you not noticed The Economist is not a US publication and doesn't hold your views on rotten Jonny Foreigner?

As a rotten Jonny Foreigner myself, do tell me precisely how I need to change to be up to your impeccable and wonderful standards. You obviously know what you are talking about.

While there are plenty of valid points in the article, I do think the mention of New Mexico(I don't know much about the other states mentioned), implying that the Latino population recently shifted it to a blue state, is grossly misleading. The last time you could call New Mexico a 'reliably red state' was over 20 years ago. The state government has been dominated by blue for over 70 years, with the Governor's office being the most competitive seat here. There is also the fact that Latino's are the majority in New Mexico, and always have been.

I think, at least in New Mexico's case, that Republicans do have the opportunity to pull large numbers of Latino voters into their camp, and all it takes is trimming the nuts, and realizing that engaging the legal population is going to be far more effective than villianizing the illegals.

You have it all wrong. Latinos are not victims, it is the long suffering legal public. I know because I live in California where it is too late.They invaded this state by the millions and are now as numerous as whites and by 2050 the state will be 50% Latino and 35% white. The schools are packed with them and this has dragged the state ratings to close to the bottom. Many parents, at great hardship, have put their kids in private schools. It is costing the state billions in health care and schooling. Hispanics now have high drop out rates and are unskilled so we support them. Brown has raised taxes so people are leaving the state including some that I know of whose families date back to the Gold Rush and their names are on Streets in San Francisco. They send billions to Mexico which does not go into our economy. And no, they are not picking lettuce. Every single house built here in recent years had a Hispanic crew. The Democrats see votes so will push Obamas plan. In fairness to those who have waited for years and who do have skills we do need, it must be done correctly. Rubio has it pretty close.

From 1990 to 2005, California gained 10 million new residents but ONLY 150,000 new taxpayers. The liberals out in California sure are generous with OTHER people's money. I bet the ruling elite in Mexico are laughing their asses off, over the past 20 years they have managed to empty their entire "not so productive" class onto their rich northern neighbor, the gullible, good-hearted gringos of the US and A!!!

Isn't California a Spanish name? Most "Mexicans" are decended from 1st nations and Spanish. Now what would they be doing in a place named California? How did the U.S. aquire California in the first place?

California was named by the Spanish. Which is also why there are all those towns here with names like San Diego and San Jose. But somehow, for folks like Katie, it is hard to grasp that someone named Martinez or Pacheco might be descended from people who have been here since before her ancestors immigrated to America, let alone reached California.

Like everyone else acquired territory: They took it by force. Don't you read world history? If the U.S. were the only ones who did it that way you might have a point. However, they aren't and you don't.

I would suggest you don't understand the word racist. Facts are not racial, they are neutral. When they are accurate and not twisted to support an otherwise unsupportable position, they are just facts. You may not like them, they may argue against your feelings, but facts are stubborn things.

I have read a book or two on world history. My main point was that Mexicans were in California before all those pure blood Americans. The official story is that the United States bought California albeit at the point of a gun. This is still refered to at the "big rip-off" or the "great swindle" in Mexico. Sarah Palin for President

I also understand the history. I suspect there is little territory around the globe that hasn't at one time or another been in dispute with the (currently)final resolution being determined, if not by force, then by the exercise of power coupled with the implied threat of force. The ME, Africa SA, and Asia are ripe examples and of course the borders in Europe were changing so much the maps should have been drawn in pencil. That has nothing to do with the Mexican and others, invasions over our borders. None of their grandparents were alive when the borders changed. You might ask Spain how they lost control of California. As I recall, it wasn't a peaceful negotiation with a FMV price paid...

It is time in America to end the politics of racial division . . . Washington, DC is broken per 77% of a Gallop poll and the people do not think it can be fixed with just elections . . Here is how we American citizens can take our Constitution back and end the Super Power of money in DC to divide and bribe voter groups while conducting Social engineering - Picking winners and losers in the economy usurping the constitutional limits on Central government powers.

It is long past time to just take away the power from all three Central government branches and Restore the Founders designed weak and limited powers Federal government and Restore the strong and unlimited State governments. This site also has one of the largest FREE Constitutional and history of government libraries. It contains links to original sources, Founders and Framers papers, convention notes, State Constitution debates, it is a place you can learn what America is all about . .

We tried a weak central government. But the Articles of Confederation didn't work out well. That's why the Constitution got written. A lot of things ought to get left to the states; that's how we find out what works and what doesn't. But leaving unlimited State governments in peace to suppress some groups for the benefit of another group, as with the Jim Crow laws, is not sensible (to anyone outside the group being discriminated in favor of).

Jouris,
Visit the library on the site and read the information - your premise is false - the Founders intended the Federal Central government to exist within the four corners of the actual Constitutions and to be limited by Article I section 8 called the enumerated powers. Most of what the Federal gov does today is OUTSIDE their Constitutional authority - just as the courts are functioning outside their Constitutional limits of Article III.

The Marbury V Madison case was a poorly disguised grab of power by the Court. Next as McCullough V Maryland again the court used dicta to build a strawman and again seize more power - both are usurpation - the courts are not given those powers.

Read the history it is all there facts speak volumes and false premises fail - Keep in mind that the Constitution said what it means and means what is says - in other words the entire meaning is set in time and place for all times. There is a link to a 1828 dictionary which is free. Read and learn . . http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/

Coelum non animam mutant qui trans mare currunt . Horace
[Those who cross the sea[border] change the sky above them, but not their souls ]
---
Most of Latinos who come illegally to USA do not want to assimilate, don't learn English . In Miami where they are almost the majority, in the stores owned/controlled by Hispanics the "official " language is Spanish. After the amnesty proposed by the Gang of 8, very soon there will be the need of handling almost 22 millions who speak only Spanish and who do not care learning English .
Why they don't want to be bilingual ? They want to change a country but they don't want to change an iota ? They remain exactly the same people as before becoming illegal immigrants.

I have taught many hundreds of the children of recently arrived immigrants and each of these kids was totally at home in English (and Spanish.) The older generation usually lags in this regard. We could, of course, speed up the process by halting the dual-langauge bias in government and commerce ("To continue in English, please push 1") but that, of course, would be "racist.") It would, of course, benefit Hispanics by providing incentive to fully enter the world of commerce -- but to liberals, ANYTHING that suggests that white European-Americans are anything other than racists is, of course, racist. The language problem, in any event, is just the usual stage recent immigrants go through -- albeit unnecessarily aggravated by the Left.

I find it astonishing that someone from a country where the entire population (apart from about 1% who are native Americans( are immigrants or descendents of an immigrant moaning about, er, immigrants. Without immigrants the USA would simply not exist.

Or are you saying there is or was a "proper" sort of immigrant? If so, please do tell us what the criteria are and why you meet them and others don't.

Cretinist - your comments reflect a fence post mentality. People who are against ILLEGAL immigration are not necessarily racist or xenophobes, they are pro-legal, anti-illegal. Is that too hard a concept to grasp?

If I were still a businessman, you bet I'd want to keep my Spanish customers.

But . . . at the DMV, the IRS -- you name it -- forms are easily available in both languages. Ride the NYC subways and half the instructions are in Spanish. On the one hand, this helps those for whom Spanish is the primary language. But, it also helps maroon them in a world in which the vast majority do NOT speak Spanish. Were their Yiddish IRS forms in the 1920s? Possibly -- but I doubt it. And, the Eastern European Jews became fluent in English and succeeded beyond all measure.

And, no, I don't care if people say I am racist -- because we have reached the point where not going along with PC earns one that label as a badge of honor.

Yes. The anti-immigration brigade use the same polemics whether they are talking about legal or illegal immigration. As you can well see from some of the postings in this forum about legal immigrants from the EU to the UK - welfare scroungers, ghetto inhabitants, lazy, unwilling to speak English, criminals.....
Strange isn't it that the tirades about Hispanic immigrants we see here fail to mention Hispanics who are legally in the USA - many have been so for generations. They don't seem to have done the USA any harm whatsoever.

Well, obviously I can't speak for all those opposed to amnesty like "reform" for illegals in the country (Hispanic, EU, Brits, Asians, etc.) any more than you can speak for those who are in favor of another amnesty. Let me ask you a a couple of questions: How does granting those here illegally the right to stay here while they await their citizenship while those trying to come here legally must stay out respect our laws? How is that not spitting in the face of the legal, law abiding aliens trying to come according to the law? How is that not spitting on the rule of law?
I have no problems with Hispanic folks, I find then much more likeable than left wing liberals. They are generally hard working, religious, and strong family oriented folks.
What I can't abide are those who ignore our laws by sneaking in here illegally, then becoming serial law breakers, and finally having the gall to demand rights and citizenship.

Nobody could care less whether you like liberals or not. The rest of your posting is exactly what several of us are complaining about. Americans who think their low information opinion and polemics are worth listening to.

Lationos, including, especially, Illegals, tend to vote Democratic because they benefit substantially from social welfare programs. Blacks vote Democratic for the same reason. If I were black or Latino, that is how I would vote. Furthermore, they are not "the worst victims of the terrible schools in the USA," they are partially the cause those schools are so terrible. The out-of-wedlock birth-rate among Latinos greatly exceeds that among whites and is on its way, apparently, to equal that of the black population. In other words, Latinos are Democrats because the Democrats send them checks. If it were the Rastafarians that sent them checks, the Latinos (and blacks) would vote Rastafarian.
I do not mean that Latinos are lazy or in anyway "inferior." The ones I know work like horses. But, many are indifferently educated recent immigrants and are inevitably quasi-public charges. The long and the short of it is this: the Democrats buy the Latino and black vote by appropriating money from the older, more settled population -- especially white Euro-Americans -- and handing out this money to the minorities who vote Democratic.
***It is impossible to oppose this wealth-transfer, entirely unearned by its recipients, without being accused of "racism." Democrats become "liberal" heroes because of this appropriation and conversion of earned income to unearned income.
***It has ALWAYS been this way in America. It is the only way it CAN be if we are to continue to benefit from immigration. The Boss Tweeds of the 19th century ran protection rackets that enabled them to transfer earned income from saloon owners and small businessmen to the Irish, Jewish, Polish,etc., immigrants who had done nothing to earn it. In time, those new immigrants became established and then it was THEIR turn to be ripped-off to support the next beneficiaries of liberal largesse. It is not a bad system nor is it inherently unfair. It gave my ancestors a leg-up in a hard world and probably did the same for yours as well.
***The GOP serves a useful purpose by preventing the Democrats from going hogwild on their buying of votes with other people's money. T'was always thus and will always be so.

Just the way you don't have any data to support they don't. Please go to any community that has over 25% of Latino population and you will know. It is not uncommon to see Latinos wearing Ugg boots and Northface jackets and using food stamps in Walmart and Sams club. And this comes from an immigrant myself - a well educated, highly skilled, hard working person earning well (by well I mean really well > 250K), so I am not a racist or anti immigrant. I waited in line for 12 years to become a citizen, did everything legally but if I have to get my family here it will take another 20 years. I am ever indebted to this country - I am who I am because of this great country but I am slowly losing that feeling due all this dirty politics that is basically giving amnesty to those who broke the law. I am angry because this is the community that is dragging my school district down, property value down, crime is up...there was not a single currency exchange or title loan stores in my community when I moved to where I live now about 15 years ago...and now it is there every where along with Los Burritos (I love Mexican food by the way). And not to mention these wannabe, washed up Latino teenage girls in my daughter's high school...pathetic. I understand there are lots of good Latino families but in general in any community where Latino population is growing rapidly the quality of the community is going down and non Latino population is fleeing.

Blacks, roughly 12% of the population, represent about 40% of total recipients. Latinos, as a category, somewhat less but still far more represented in proportion to population than whites. This information is often massaged into "Which race has the largest NUMBER on welfare" -- whites of course, as the population is more white than any other race -- but as a percentage of the population the whites are relatively less likely to be on welfare than blacks and Latinos. This information is easily available from government documents. (Also to anyone who is aware of conditions in cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, etc. I assume you are not so aware.)

Then ask yourself why Asian Americans, who tend to be more financially successful, less dependent on social welfare, and often more socially conservative, voted for the Democrats 3-1. Being one myself, I’d say there are several reasons, all of which could apply to Hispanic voters too:
- The GOP’s rhetoric often sounds exclusionary (“the real America” and all that).
- Its history of being more supportive of discriminatory policies is worrying even to those who weren’t targeted by them.
- Many immigrants don’t share the belief that more government is inherently bad.
- Many immigrants hold higher education in very high esteem, and the GOP appears not to.

GOP policy in a friendlier wrapper might actually work. It might not, but I certainly think the way it was presented didn’t help.

Just a small correction, illegal immigrants cannot vote. And while I personally have seen African Americans gaming the system, most Latinos I know would work a second or third job rather than rely on the government. Then again, I do not live in California. I have had many American college educated twenty somethings working for me and I can tell you that they have no work ethic and a staggering sense of entitlement. This is becoming a cultural problem not confined to any one ethnic group. Unfortunately, these discussions always seem to degenerate into perceived racism I and fear the Democrats will be in power for many years to come by playing that card.

Illegals cannot vote -- correct. I have many years experience with Latino immigrants from teaching their kids. The ones I taught worked for every penny they received. But, lacking linguistic skills and without specific training they often worked for low wages. In this respect the Democratic Party is their patron by supplementing their low wages with public benefits. I, personally, see nothing wrong with this. As for the "race card," yes -- it is the Democrats' main weapon and will remain so.

It is interesting, isn't it? How all those convinced that Latinos vote Democratic because they are getting paid off somehow never have an explanation for why Asian-Americans vote Democratic in equally large numbers. One would think that it would give anyone pause to reconsider what the actual explanation is. Anyone who isn't fact-averse anyway.

jouris and guest-iwienai,
You two brought up Asian-Americans. I'll chime in. I can tell you right off the bat that all of my Asian American friends (and they are not insignificant in number) vote Democrat because they are too ashamed to be associated with Republicans. It's that simple. This is true even when they don't agree with the far left on more than a few social issues. The level of education, or lack of it , shown across the board by folks in the Republican party scares the Jesus out of us. We scratch our heads and squint our eyes and ask, "Where do these people come from? The zoo?" Appalling is too gentle a word. The most worrisome part is they don't know how ignorant and out of touch they are. On the specific issue of race, somehow they assume for themselves a moral superiority and achievement level that have little basis in fact and a moral inferiority and achievement level for other races that are likewise ill-founded. And when all of their arguments fail, they scream God and pull out their guns . I think there are fine folks in the Republican Party. There have to be. Abraham Lincoln was Republican. It is just that suddenly some real strange folks appear as if from nowhere and call themselves Republican, as if the word means a drinking place in a can. Maybe that is Providence's idea of revenge on the whites for chasing out the Native Americans and enslaving the Blacks and exploiting the Chinese whose bare hands built the hardest crossings in the Transcontinental Railroad. The return of bad karma, this time on the original sinners. I am not saying I believe this to be true. I am just at a loss to explain where all the yahoos came from if not the zoo.

Have you even bothered to read the Economist's blog posting above on these issues. It shows than many Hispanics are voting Democrat for other reasons than being welfare scroungers. Has it occurred to you than a huge number of Hispanics in Latin America are "white Euro-Americans"?

I agree, but with one caveat. All those crazies didn't come out of nowhere. Some of them were around in the 1950s and 1960s (the John nBirch Society comes to mind). But the vast majority becamne Republicans as a result of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" -- which sucked most of the dixiecrats out of the Democratic party, where they had resided since the Civil War.
.
There are still a few of us left from the old days; still fighting the quixotic fight to get our party back. But there is no denying that, especially on issues like immigration, the Party of Lincoln has largely become the Party of Jefferson Davis.

With TANF (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families also known as Welfare) African Americans receive about 32% of the total, Whites and Hispanics also use about the same percentages (circa 31%). SNAP (food stamps) has African Americans receiving about 22.8%, with Whites and Hispanics using 36.6% and 9.6% respectively. However when it comes to the Total amount spent on entitlement benefit programs (Including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, Child tax credit, Child Health Insurance and Supplemental Security Income) amounting to more than $2 Trillion Dollars(of which TANF and SNAP combined represent about 3.5% or $72 billion of the total) Whites, representing 65% of the population receive about 69% of entitlement benefits, African Americans accounting for 12% of the population receive 14% of entitlement benefits and Hispanics, accounting for 16% of the population receive 12% of entitlement benefits.

It is not just Asian-Americans who have noticed the "low information" Americans that seem endlessly to dominate the political right in the USA. They are embarrassing to listen to. As one of my French colleagues said, "how can the these people in the richest and most powerful nation on this planet be so stupid?".

the attitude seems to be that just because they are Americans they are cleverer and more able than everyone else. It doesn't matter that they neither know anything nor admit to not knowing anything. They are always right, paranoid and cannot accept the loss of face of being wrong.

Fortunately most Americans I've met are nothing like that. They know that knowledge has to be earned the hard way, through continuous, long and demanding study, that facts matter and opinion and polemics are cheap, the world does not stop at the US borders, the universe isn't 6,000 years old and people they disagree with can be clever.

Thanks for tracing that part of American history for me. I needed to know, and continue to need to learn. Many thanks again.
.
Meanwhile, the denial and stupidity from the folks who are an embarrassment to the Party continues. Seems there is a subspecies of white folks who distinguish themselves by one singular trait - mirror blindnes, terminal stage.

Cretinist,
The whole world knows them as WHITE TRASH.
Not all whites are trash. The vast majority of them are not. Indeed, I have never encountered a single one in real life in all of the years I have lived in America. I met them the first time on TE Comment Blogs.
Some of my dearest dearest friends are white - educated, well-read, curious about other cultures and peoples, self-examining, self-critical. They know what they know and what they dont's and still needs to be learned.
I have said before: White Trash is America's curse. I will go off this thread now. Have a pleasant Saturday. I have greatly enjoyed reading your comments.

"Latinos, including, especially, Illegals, tend to vote Democratic because they benefit substantially from social welfare programs."
.
First, I'd like to see a source that "illegals" vote in the US. Second, I'd like to see a source that Latinos/Hispanics tend to vote Dem for the social programs.
.
I'll bet you 1,000 pesos that Latinos/Hispanics vote for Democrats, in part, because Dems don't generally call them illegals, anchor babies or wet backs -
.
Or rail against "amnesty", or for them "taking our jobs" or "just joining gangs", etc., unlike their GOP brethren.

I don’t understand. How would that make me a racist? I would have no qualms calling attention to a “subspecies” of my own race or any other race if there is such a subspecies. The term refers to members within a main group who set themselves apart by showing traits and characteristics not shown by other members of that group. If anything, by referring to Republican Yahoos as a “subspecies of whites”, I am saying the rest of white folks, unless they are all yahoos , are NOT yahoos. And the fact is the rest of white folks, the vast majority of them, are NOT yahoos. Only those who are yahoos are yahoos.
.
Why you are accusing me of being a racist? If other people have called you a racist, your guilt or innocence is neither determined (if it hasn't been) nor cured (if it has) by my being one.
.
And I am not even among the people who have called you a racist. What is the matter with you?

The Economist does have a problem with a certain sort of American posting here. It's a giant turn off. Nobody with any sense is interested in posters who think their opinions are just as good as everyone else's and better than the vast majority here. It's just tedious reading fact and evidence free postings, ignorance about the world, jingoism, paranoia and conspiracy theory mixed up as a toxic brew of bile. But it is common in the USA - AM radio talk shows, World Net Daily, punditry on Fox News....The Economist, in contrast, is an upmarket authoritative source of news and analysis. The Economist needs to clean up its act on its blogs as they are becoming a very bad advertisement for it.

Andros,
.
You have not read a word I wrote. You are talking to yourself.
.
On the usage of the word you are critical of, you know as well as I do I was not making a taxonomy classfication.
.
On your intimation of a slur, perhaps you should read more of all the comments entered in these blogs. I did not invent the term Yahoo. I borrowed it, after a good number of commenters similarly co-opted it.
.
Why pick on me and Teacup. Because we are females?
.
You are a mean, sour, White Male Bully. At 80-something you said you are, you have grown down, not up. Go ahead vent against all those who are not white, male and bullies. Go ahead. Give a full demonstration of how mean you are. Everybody is stupid, everybody is immoral. Nobody is smart and good as you. We already know that.
.
If you need a daily fix, find someone else to do it with. I suggest a macho person of your color. Be a man. Just like what you've told folks who are gay. Be a man, Andros. Women and nonwhites are not created by God for your bullying.
.
This is the last post I write in reply to you. Note I did not write any response to you to start this exchange. You came in in my replies to others and tried to pick a fight with me. I don't do fights.

Quote: "You are listening to the FRENCH talk about being stupid?? Why not just dial up someone in Lower Slobbovia and hear what they have to say?"
.
That post had better be sarcastic, otherwise you have just lost all respect from this Frenchman. The irony is that if you actually meant it, you probably would not give a toss about the resulting loss of respect amongst not just French readers, but just about anybody with a cent of good sense and open mind.
.
If you *were* indeed being sarcastic, then I guess I will give this one a pass, but be aware that it is far below your usual standards.

I am Hispanic, educated, make 6 figures, pay way more in taxes than I will ever get back in benefits, and comments from callus, ignorant and completely xenophobic people like Mangopop and RestrainedRadical are exactly why I can't vote Republican...

I too believe in lower taxes, control of federal spending.. But all I see from republicans is callousness no empathy for other humans and just a feeling that makes me sick to my stomach since I know they are fighting hard in their minds to restrain themselves and not just come out and say "yes I hate Mexicans" Really the republicans have a lot to do before they get my vote!

And when they get that far, they will be a very different kind of Republican than we (mostly) see now. Certainly it can be done. After all, the yahoos that are running the party now manged to take it over from the moderate conservatives a couple of decades ago. But it won't be quick or easy.

Marco Rubio has one problem when he claims to speak for all Latinos. He is from Cuban stock and they have been getting special treatment since 1962. No Cuban Hispanic has to worry about papers. They get a free ride as soon as they set foot on US soil. When Rubio addresses that divergence he will have some credibility, otherwise, none.

Are you an adherent to tribalist principle? Rubio needs to apologize for his Cuban origins before you start to pay any attention to policies he stands for? A lil' La guerra del fútbol, like that between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969... you're a joker, really.

And something else. You say "No Cuban Hispanic has to worry about papers. They get a free ride as soon as they set foot on US soil".
.
However, you forgot how do they reach this soil, many of them drowning by the way. Even that is not any guarantee for "free ride": do you remember that lad Elián González, whose mother lost her life taking him out of the Cuban Communist Paradise?
.
He was forcibly returned there by the epitome of the US Democrat, trying on the late Ted Kennedy's shoes - impeached but unrepentant president Bill "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman" Clinton? The Kennedy clan had a lot of progeny trained to usurp power, the Clintons produced a daughter who looks not interested... but Hillary eyes the White House ever since she was its mistress, just wait and see.

Coelum non animam mutant qui trans mare currunt . Horace
[Those who cross the sea[border] change the sky above them, but not their souls ]
---
Most of Latinos who come illegally to USA do not want to assimilate, don't learn English . In Miami where they are almost the majority, in the stores owned/controlled by Hispanics the "official " language is Spanish. After the amnesty proposed by the Gang of 8, very soon there will be the need of handling almost 22 millions who speak only Spanish and who do not care learning English .
Why they don't want to be bilingual ? They want to change a country but they don't want to change an iota ? They remain exactly the same people as before becoming illegal immigrants.

INVASION, REOCCUPATION & RECLAMATION!
"Spain's former Prime Minister Zapatero having convinced himself that he has formed an axis of powers with Madrid, Paris, Berlin and Moscow against London, the English speaking hub of the Anglo Celtic nations of the United Kingdom and the United States (and by extension Australia, Canada, Ireland New Zealand and Singapore) also went on to rally a Hispanic axis making up of Asunción, Bogotá, Caracas, Buenos Aires, Lima, Montevideo and Quito to challenge Washington with a vengeance.
Vincent Fox, hero to all those who blame the United States of America for their own inadequacies and failures (along with the current President Calderòn) has a megalomaniacal aspiration to go down in history as the dauntless statesman accountable for the break-up and ultimate demise of Anglo-dominated America and Canada.
(Killing the geese that lay the golden eggs and cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face all at once)
Reinforcing la “Alianza Estratégica” (strategic alliance) with México meant covertly encouraging, aiding and abetting Mexicans in their mission to reacquire the northern half of Mexico (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah) and take revenge by infiltrating “illegal immigrants” (similar to the Islamists’ attempt to saturate Australia with “refugees” prior to 9/11) to become fifth columnists using the Spanish language as the weapon to divide and eventually galvanize separatist movements across America in a massive scheme to destroy the Anglo-Celtic built society from within, not dissimilar to what de Gaulle tried to do to Canada with Québec in 1967."
With ostensible friends like these, perhaps America needs erstwhile reluctant enemies of the Warsaw Pact